Bradley Manning trial clearly too secretive or something

[sfc_darrel]

Bradley Manning trial clearly too secretive or something

posted at 9:31 am on May 26, 2012 by Jazz Shaw




It’s been a while since we checked in on our old pal Breanna Bradley Manning and her his ongoing saga of alleged treason. When we last caught up with the accused traitor and abettor of enemy interests, he was seeking to have the charges against him dismissed because they were too vague. The judge gave that argument roughly the same credence as your average episode of Finding Bigfoot, but don’t think for a moment that this minor setback deterred the defense. They’ve come up with a new plan. The trial isn’t valid because finding out if Private Manning released all of our government secrets to the enemy is… (wait for it…) too secretive.

The military trial of the WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning is being conducted amid far more secrecy than even the prosecution of the alleged 9/11 plotters in Guantanamo, a coalition of lawyers and media outlets protest.

Led by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, the coalition has petitioned the Army court of criminal appeals calling for the court-martial against Manning to be opened up to the press and public. The group complains that the way the trial is being handled by the trial judge Colonel Denise Lind is a violation of the First Amendment of the constitution that requires public access unless the government can specifically demonstrate the need for secrecy.

(Emphasis mine above)

So… OK then. Manning is accused of releasing a treasure trove of secrets in a scatter-shot fashion, many of which involved sensitive diplomatic and military communications. But the trial is invalid because prosecutors can’t demonstrate the information being discussed during testimony is secret enough?

As I asked in the previous column linked above… is this guy actually getting a real defense from his attorneys? Or could this be a ploy to act in such an incredibly inept fashion that they can shoot for a mistrial later on?
I’ve lost track of any sensible thread in all of this.

Could anyone really take this seriously? Apparently so.

Discuss.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/2...-or-something/

[reconeil]

"Unless the government can specifically demonstrate the need for secrecy" is nothing more that obvious or quite purposefully diversionary and stupid failure excusing Political Bull.

None of America's most highest of ruling elite demonstrated any: "Need for secrecy" while throwing that greatly valued intelligence asset (that poor Pakistani doctor) to the wolves or under the bus.

Given such a blatant Officialdom Stupidity or disregard at keeping valued intel agents secret from enemies by America's most highest of echelon types, it's very doubtful that in future very many foreign nationals can or will ever be convinced to secretly work for America again.

Even foreign nationals most hungry for U.S. Dollars aren't that stupid, nuts or suicidal.

Hell. Even American idiots wouldn't dare spy for America if thought they would be so cavalierly exposed, such would cost them quite severely,...and even a loss of freedom.

Besides,...why-in-the-hell EVER EXPOSE Undercover Assets to Our Enemies, anyway?
Isn't such Treasonable?

Neil